Jeffrey Epstein coordinating art acquisitions with contacts, mentions Trump involvementThis document is labeled as Exhibit A in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and appears to ...
Case File
d-36498House OversightDepositionHouse Oversight Deposition Designation Dispute Highlights Procedural Arguments
Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011452
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Summary
The excerpt discusses procedural arguments over deposition designations in a civil case, with no specific names, dates, financial transactions, or allegations of misconduct involving high‑profile acto Counsel argues the opposing side failed to timely designate inadmissible testimony. Reference to using adverse inference against witnesses based on their answers. Mention of Southern District reporte
This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.
View Source CollectionTags
depositionslegal-strategycivil-litigationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightcourt-procedure
Browse House Oversight Committee ReleasesHouse Oversight #011452
Ask AI about this document
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureText extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
10
id.
12
13
14
L5
16
ne)
18
life)
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
H3vlgiu2
leading, they could both be exact opposite questions. The
witnesses would say the Fifth to everything, and then you look
at the jury and you say, okay, now you can impose an adverse
inference against anybody you want to based on the questions
that the lawyers asked. I mean, that's really what this ends
up being, and it's a waste of time, and it is of no evidentiary
significance.
Then the last point, which I'm just going to need to
correct Mr. Cassell on, the plaintiffs were saying somehow that
we were untimely in not designating portions of these
depositions which we believe are wholly inadmissible, and the
point of our reply was, wait a minute, you didn't designate any
of this testimony until after the designation date was over.
(Continued on next page)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.